Transposing [vec1, vec2, vec3] will absolutely work. I think the issue you saw with it was specific to ImmutableArrays. I don't know why they have that behavior.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Simon Danisch <[email protected]> wrote: > I mean, my whole busyness is about constructing matrices of Vec2/3/4, which > inherit from DenseArray. > So I'm basically forced, if I'm not missing something, to do quite a bit of > work to get my [vec1 vec2 vec3] going. > Especially, as transpose([vec1, vec2, vec3]) doesn't seem to work, bug or > not isn't known to me. > > 2015-02-25 23:18 GMT+01:00 Simon Danisch <[email protected]>: >> >> Well, the issue raised here was, how do you realize non concatening [a b >> c]? This seems impossible now, even though that there are quite a few use >> cases for it... >> >> 2015-02-25 23:13 GMT+01:00 Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]>: >>> >>> I actually think the plan of [a,b,c] for construction without >>> concatenation and [a;b;c] and [a b c] for concatenation is pretty good. I no >>> longer feel that there's any need for a new bracket like [| |]. The thing >>> that clicked for me is that [a;] isn't really concatenation at all anyway. >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Simon Danisch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> As Julia was the first language to introduce me to this kind of >>>> constructs, I'm not sure about your used terms. >>>> Concatenate for me would firstly mean, to just connect elements (that's >>>> at least what the German translation suggests), which I would apply to the >>>> process of putting the elements together into one array. The elements in my >>>> case are the Vectors. >>>> You seem to use it as synonymous with concatenation + flattening >>>> (sticking to the function names I guess). >>>> I'd say [a,b] is supposed to concatenate, but shouldn't flatten, right? >>>> So yes, different syntax for concatenating, and concatenating+flattening >>>> would make this case much, much clearer. >>>> Then it's not this fuzzy magic thing, that sometimes happens and >>>> sometimes not and both clearly encapsulates a concept and use the same >>>> basic >>>> syntax. >>>> So: >>>> [vec, vec] => [vec, vec] # With optional typing, ensuring that you don't >>>> end up with Any[] >>>> [vec vec] => [vec vec] # With optional typing, ensuring that you don't >>>> end up with Any[] >>>> >>>> [| vec, vec |] => [el1, el2, el3, el4, ...]# With optional typing, >>>> ensuring that you don't end up with Any[] >>>> [| vec vec |] => [el el2 ; el3 el4]# With optional typing, ensuring >>>> that you don't end up with Any[] >>>> >>>> I do think, that this is very clear and consistent and doesn't leave >>>> anything in doubt! >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2015 19:00:01 UTC+1 schrieb Simon Danisch: >>>>> >>>>> Hi there, >>>>> I thought default concatenation was deprecated, to make it easier to >>>>> create arrays of arrays... But it became rather impossible and confusing >>>>> in >>>>> the horizontal case, from what I see. >>>>> Is there really not a single method left from the few ways in 0.35 of >>>>> creating a horizontal vector of vectors? >>>>> 0.4: >>>>> >>>>> https://gist.github.com/SimonDanisch/6972c1c090c608738e83#file-cat0-4-jl >>>>> 0.3.5: >>>>> >>>>> https://gist.github.com/SimonDanisch/058ef76b2583c620b667#file-cat3-5-jl >>>>> >>>>> Am I missing something, or is this a bug?! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Simon >>> >>> >> >
